Ihor MALASHENKO: “Ukraine gives me an opportunity to do full-fledged work here. ”

One of the early founders of Russia’s independent television, Ihor Malashenko had to leave for the United States after the NTV channel was checkmated in 2001. Since then he has had to follow the developments in his fatherland from New York.

He works in Manhattan as the head of the RTVi channel, which targets Russian-speaking people outside Russia, and often comes on a visit to Ukraine. In our country he helps promote the Ukrainian TBi channel as an advisor.

Most interestingly, Malashenko’s parents hail from the city of Nizhyn, Chernihiv oblast. The family had to frequently move from place to place, because the father was in the military. The future head of NTV had an opportunity to live in Stanislav (today Ivano-Frankivsk), and Lviv (1964— 1967 and 1969—1972).

Malashenko has shared his views on a number of interesting questions with the Ukrainian readers.

Mr. Malashenko, you are known for your independent media projects in Russia in the early 1990s. How would you characterize the Russian mass media under Yeltsin and his successor Vladimir Putin? What is the difference between them?

“These two periods are cardinally different. I am reluctant to use the word ‘independent,’ because in Russia – in the contemporary Russian language – this word is perceived as something pretentious. The question arise at once: independent of what? Independent of the state. For me, the word ‘non-governmental’ is a synonym to the word ‘independent.’

“In the early 1990s Russia had a huge demand for information. Therefore, when NTV was launched, it was immensely successful. The best journalists joined us, and our TV company adopted the motto ‘News is our profession.’ For several years NTV was the pacemaker. Thus, NTV was satisfying the social need for information.

“At that time the Internet was only beginning to spread, so television was a very important source of information. The citizens preserved a great interest in political information, which they had in the preceding period, Gorbachev’s perestroika. However, during the perestroika the printing press was playing the leading role, while in the next period it was television. In particular, NTV had the program “Itogi” (Summing Up) with Yevgenii Kiselev.

“However, after a short while the situation changed drastically. After several years the need for non-governmental information dropped sharply, the people concluded that they did not need it much. As a result, NTV appeared to have fewer supporters than it used to have. As it is known, if there is no demand, the supply is adjusted. So, today television in Russia has cardinally changed; it has taken on a more entertaining character. Of course, many are shouting that the society gets sillier because of this kind of television, but at the same time society is getting what it wants to get. If the society wanted to have another kind of television, it would have it, as it happened in the mid-1990s.

“Furthermore, today television is not such an important source of information as it used to be. For example, I am a professional consumer of information, and I find practically everything I need on the Internet. Correspondingly, the people who place high value on information, who live on the edge of sociopolitical changes, and who read Moskovskie novosti 20 years ago and watched Itogi 10 years ago, are, naturally, using the Internet today.”

Society makes a key contribution to the freedom of speech. However, doesn’t the Russian government influence the citizens’ demand for information in an important way?

“In Yeltsin’s period the government was unable (and did not have a great desire) to interfere with mass media. It was unable to do this because the Soviet system had just collapsed and the memory about the Soviet censorship was still vivid, so most of people did not want to return to it. And those representatives of the government who secretly wanted to regain control over the mass media, could not do this, to a large extent thanks to Yeltsin, because he actually liked non-governmental mass media very much.

“Of course, Yeltsin became angry, like any person or politician, when somebody criticized him, and he was criticized a lot, by NTV among others. But at the same time, he greatly enjoyed this game—the interaction of a politician with independent mass media — and understood its importance. In this respect Yeltsin, of course, was head and shoulders above present-time rulers of Russia. Time has passed, the social demand and politicians have changed, and now we have what we have.”

Are there any mass media in Russia that could be called independent to some extent?

“As far as I know, there still remain some regional mass media that manage to retain some portion of independent information. What concerns Moscow, it does not have any independent television. To continue the line, there is also the independent radio station Ekho Moskvy (The Echo of Moscow). By the way, Vladimir Gusinski and I, as shareholders of our American company, continue to have shares in Ekho Moskvy, strange as it may sound for Russia today.

“We are proud that Ekho Moskvy continues the tradition of non-governmental mass media in Russia. But let me repeat, the Internet is the most important thing. One should face the truth: there are very few people interested in the sources of information that are independent of the state; they find everything they need on the Internet. Therefore, I don’t expect any tectonic shifts regarding television. Why would I switch on the TV set at some definite time if I can surf the net and instantly learn everything I’m interested in: communicate with people, ask and answer questions, leave my comments, etc.”

How would you characterize the political system of present-day Russia? What may be the current policy of the country’s leadership lead to?

“Russia’s current political system is an authoritarian regime. The word ‘authoritarian’ is often perceived as an abusive epithet, but it is not so—this is simply a scientific term meaning a regime that controls the country’s political and economic spheres of life. Yeltsin, too, had some elements of authoritarianism, but on a smaller scale than today.

“One should not expect any radical changes of Russia’s ruling regime in the foreseeable future, and any such hopes are vain. An elite or active minority sets rules in any system even if it’s a democracy. The Russian elite of today is extremely weak, therefore it cannot and does not want to establish any other rules of the game. Thus, personalities will inevitably be rotating in the Russian regime, as well as the style of ruling, but the political system will remain essentially the same.”

The Kremlin leadership has monopolized power in Russia and brought to naught the activity of its opponents. Can the democratic part of Russian intelligentsia influence the political situation in the country in any way? Or can it adopt only a wait-and-see position?

“In my opinion, the important thing is not the views people have, but the quantity of these people and their readiness to defend their rights and interests. When there is a critical mass in the society, eager to confirm its independence of the state, democracy appears. If a country has a sufficient number of political egoists, players who are independent of one another, they eventually come to the conclusion that they need to set democratic rules of game, otherwise they won’t be able to get along. Therefore, it is the same difference whether the Russian elite has authoritarian or democratic views.

“Unfortunately, people with democratic views in Russia have an extremely vague notion of social order as it is in reality. They often have a mess in their heads, and there are few exceptions. I often feel irritated when I speak to these people. I ask myself, why? Although I fully agree with this person, I understand that s/he simply will not attain his/her goals, because Russia does not have a critical mass, and this is not this person’s fault. Therefore, at different stages of Russian history some form of authoritarian power was the common denominator for the the elite.”

Can one expect society alone to form a critical mass? Shouldn’t the country’s elite take part in this, too?

“Yes, I agree that the absence of a critical mass is not a reason for idling away the time. In the 1990s there was NTV, and I am sure that people who watched this channel may be called the NTV generation. I believe that these citizens still have to show themselves, and then other people will come to replace them, people who matured in Putin’s Russia, and we will have another setback. That is precisely very reason we continue to do what we are doing. I have already mentioned Ekho Moskvy; there is also the website newsru.com, and the RTVi TV channel, which broadcasts from New York and is a partner of Ekho Moskvy.”

The change of power in Russia took place in 1999. After a couple of years it was clear how it affected the mass media, particularly after the “state racketeering” of NTV in 2001, as put it. In Ukraine the transfer of power took place later, after the autumn 2004 events on the Maidan. In your opinion, how have the Ukrainian mass media changed since then?

“I won’t comment on the evolution of the Ukrainian mass media, because I simply don’t know anything about this process. However, in the past 18 months I have made frequent trips to Ukraine, so I can share my own observations with you, rather than something I have read or heard somewhere. Everything I see now in Ukraine differs drastically from Russia. Ukraine indeed has freedom of speech. But the problem of the Ukrainian mass media is that there is too many of them. From the economic viewpoint, the market cannot support such a number of channels and news agencies. It follows from this that many mass media in Ukraine exist not for economic reasons but because of political motives.

“Ukraine’s political forces are obviously supporting a larger number of channels than the market can really accommodate. Against the backdrop of the difficult economic crisis, the years 2009 and 2010 will be demonstrative in this respect. I think that the advertising market will surely drop by 50 percent. It will be interesting to see what number of channels will stay afloat, sink, or disappear altogether. Taking into consideration the presidential election campaign that has, in a sense, already started, and the uncertainty regarding the parliamentary elections, the owners of channels will be scrambling money together in order to preserve their political influence or at least its semblance.

“One of the sad aspects of the Ukrainian mass media is that the demand is higher than the supply of qualified journalists. Today the world and his wife are engaged in journalism in Ukraine; there are a lot of undertrained journalists. If Ukraine had a tough market, it would sift out amateurs.

“Against the background of the political bias of the Ukrainian channels it is terrifying that many journalists accept the existing rules of the game. One of the saddest stories that happened to NTV was that, in addition to the government takeover, most of the journalists easily gave up their professional freedoms and agreed to go to this state-run stable. I’m sad to see journalists openly bring their professional reputation to the ground. And now this is common for Ukrainian and Russian journalism. However, I’m optimistic about Ukraine. I believe that unlike Russia, it will be impossible to put the mass media under state control here. Regarding the other problems, I think the market will put everything in its place, although this won’t happen soon.”

One of the components of the Ukrainian-Russian gas conflict at the beginning of this year was an information attack of the Russian mass media against Ukraine for the purpose of discrediting our country in both Russia and Ukraine. In your opinion, has Ukraine succeeded in repelling this attack? Was its reaction adequate?

“The situation in Russia is not difficult to understand: they have a monopoly for TV and all political information, therefore the image of Ukraine in Russia is very clear and very negative. I won’t describe it—one has only to switch on any Russian channel and everything will be clear. It is more difficult for me to judge whether Russia has managed to discredit Ukraine in the eyes of Ukrainians, but I must admit that the Ukrainian power indeed has problems because it has discredited itself and continues to do so. I won’t speak about this because it is reported every day, and everyone is sick and tired of it.

“The West puts the bulk of responsibility on Russia and ascribes to it the main negative developments. One thing is important to understand: in our cultures, Ukrainian and Russian, the importance of the words is greater that in the West. Here one is spouting words, but if you look at and analyze Ukrainian news programs, this is, in fact, no news, but statements, quotes, rumors, etc. The situation is different in Western countries: words are less important there, while more attention is paid to actions.

“The West knows only one thing: there is Russia that undertook to supply gas to Europe, rather than to Ukraine’s border. That is why Russia is considered guilty, regardless of the events. It follows from this that the Russian government, which had made this decision and brought about this kind of situation, has very poor feedback. And this is clear: after creating monopoly for information, it became hostage to its system. Thus, the government hears only what it wants to hear or what it wants to say to its subjects.

“The Russian government treats its citizens like subjects, rather than citizens, and has every reason to do so because Russian citizens behave like subjects. So, the Kremlin made an inadequate assessment of the situation and the way it was perceived in the West. Later Russia understood its mistake, and started saying in an offended way that the West was behaving in an incorrect and unfair way: instead of putting all the blame of Ukraine, it is reproaching Russia.

“Ukraine was not at its best in this situation. All the people who are interested in this problem knew pretty well the inside struggle with RosUkrEnerho and consciously took part in the conflict with Russia. So they are also to blame for what happened. However, a lot of political damage done to Russia is not a reason for Ukraine to rejoice because it got its own share.

“After speaking with many people in Kyiv I realized that they have a very much distorted understanding of how the gas conflict was perceived abroad. I even remember the first program “On Top” with Evgeniy Kiselev on the TBi: Oleh Dubyna, head of Naftohaz, was the guest and he said that the West was putting all the blame on Ukraine. Stunned, Kiselev replies that this was not true and he was right. Therefore, Ukrainian politicians need to understand the reaction of the external world in a more adequate way. This will enable them to make more correct decisions.”

any Russian democrats believe that the successful implementation of the democratic project in Russia depends on how it will be implemented in Ukraine. Do you agree with them?

“No, I don’t. I believe that the success of democratic transformations, if they come (they will because even the current Russian government agrees that democracy is the best form of state government), depends on the desire and aspirations of the Russian society. Democracy, in a sense, won in the world a long time ago, any dictator announces that s/he is a democrat, and builds a democratic fa ade; elections, division of power, and so on.

“No matter how depressing the current situation in Russia is, it is still better than it was 20 years ago. At the same time, it does not mean that if the current situation is better, we don’t need to seek higher standards. I’m always irritated by Americans who say that things are not so bad in Russia—think about what the situation was there 20 years ago. I respond: let us recall what was happening under Stalin 50 years ago, in 1937. Then the current rulers of Russia should be given the Nobel Prize. The question is put in an absurd way, because you should compare the situation with the one you want to have, not with what you had in the year one.

“One can achieve democratic transformations only from inside Russia. The Russian democrats who speak of Russia’s dependence on Ukraine are either insincere or fail to understand that they will have to resolve this task on their own. Of course, it is very useful for the Russian politicians to observe the developments in Ukraine, because it affects Russia in one way or the other. I am sure that the Kremlin rulers believe that the Orange revolution was a grandiose special operation and that the victors were the CIA’s fifth column. And they concluded that they should target all non-governmental organizations in Russia. The Orange revolution proved for the Russian rulers that there is nothing impossible in politics. Therefore, in this respect all the developments in Ukraine are extremely important, but it is an exaggeration to say that the destiny of Russian democracy depends on this.”

You are linked to Ukraine by more than frequent trips. What exactly is this connection?

“I am linked to Ukraine by the fact that I was born in a country, which included both Russia and Ukraine. I can tell you openly that I am 100 percent Ukrainian. I sometimes use this when I am in Kyiv and someone suggests that I don’t understand the national character. When we marked an anniversary of launching the TBi channel, one of the people present said that I don’t understand, there are Ukrainians here, and we are different. I responded to this that I am 100 percent Ukrainian and understand the national character equally well or even better than he did. As Gorbachev put it, ‘It’s in our genes.’

“I feel at home in Ukraine, although not very comfortable, because I lost my Ukrainian a long time ago. I lived in Lviv for several years and finished school there, so Lviv is a favorite city of my childhood years. I have discovered with pleasure that Lviv is playing a special role in the current life of Ukraine, because the percentage of Lviv natives in Kyiv is clearly above what you would expect statistically.

“Ukraine gives me an opportunity to do full-fledged work here. I am saying this because we, for example, operate a Russian channel from Manhattan, and this is like sitting on the Moon. However, I know America well, I worked for many years in the Institute of the US and Canada, and visited the US in times when nobody did. This was a hostile territory; there were no direct flights to the US, so in order to get to Washington I had to go to Montreal, then to New York, and only then to the American capital. I tell Americans: you, guys, are absolutely ‘digital,’ whereas I am ‘analog’; that is why we have compatibility issues. Although this is a joke, there is a lot of truth to it. I don’t feel at home in the US, so I intend to leave it sooner or later.

“I consider Ukraine my country, and I am very grateful to it for giving me an opportunity to help my colleagues operate the TBi channel and speak my native language. Although I am Ukrainian, I was born in Moscow and socialized as Russian, therefore the Russian language is native for me. I understand Ukrainian very well, but I’m ashamed to speak this language, because I make many mistakes, and one should not mutilate a language. I am glad that Yanukovych learned to speak Ukrainian much better than he did previously. And in general, according to my observations, the Ukrainian language I hear on TV is improving and this is pleasant.”

The newspaper Den’ is known for different projects. For 10 years now our newspaper has held annual photo contests, while the resulting photo exhibits toured around Ukraine. You have recently given us an album with your photos. Is photography your hobby?

“I think that it’s important not to mix your personal likings with your job. For me it’s photography, which is my long-time pursuit, and work in the sphere of mass media. It will be wrong not to separate these two things. It is easier for journalists in this sense because, circumstances permitting, they want to do what they like at work, but managers like me have to do what they must do. Therefore, they need a sphere for their personal pursuits. Photography is this kind of pursuit, and I will continue to follow it.”

Are you considering an option of moving to Ukraine and working here, as some of your colleagues from NTV, such as Savik Shuster and Yevgenii Kiselev, are doing?

“I’m not a journalist; I have a family and little children, and they have gone through a lot of experiments because of my biography. I will not conceal it from you that I eventually plan to return to Russia. Furthermore, I am old already: I was born in 1954, a year after Stalin’s death, and have seen a lot in my life. I very well remember both Khrushchev and Brezhnev, as well as many other changes. Therefore, it is strange for me to imagine that these changes will discontinue because of some combination of events and that I won’t see a different Russia. So I’m planning to work in Russia, but if it doesn’t work out, I can move to Ukraine—I’m a realist.”

In your opinion, can the deepening world economic crisis, which has undoubtedly affected both Russia and Ukraine, bring about any qualitative political changes inside and outside our countries?

“I don’t expect the crisis to have any great influence on geopolitics. However, I may be wrong, because I hear many people saying that China will play some supernatural role, and things will change cardinally in the world. I think that the United States and the European Union will overcome this crisis as the strongest players. It even seems to me that the US can relatively strengthen its positions in the world, although not as much as it could. The reason is that the great government that the democrats are now trying to restore will, in fact, slow down the country’s revival, just as Roosevelt’s notorious administration did in the 1930s. Today many serious economists are debating the extent, rather than the fact, of its adverse influence during the Great Depression.

“Some of the results of the economic crisis are obvious: the Democrats have won in the US. I have been dealing this question professionally for a long time. Until September 15 I was sure that John McCain would win, but when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy I understood that this was a catastrophe and McCain was doomed to failure, and it happened so. Since this date the feeling of crisis in America has permeated everything.

“It was strange for me to come to Kyiv and see that everything was all right here and people even did not understand what crisis I was talking about. Several months passed and this wave reached Ukraine. The scariest thing is that after the Dow Jones index dropped early this year another wave is coming, and it has not touched Ukraine yet, unfortunately. I say ‘unfortunately’ because it will surely come here, because the Ukrainian economy is linked to the world economy.

“Regarding the influence of the economic crisis on Ukrainian politics, I may note that the Ternopil elections really showed that there is a demand for a new force. Of course, I don’t think that Oleh Tiahnybok’s party will build on its success and will be able to claim something on a national scale, but there is Arsenii Yatseniuk. In reality they have a simple task. Indisputably, Viktor Yanukovych is leading the public opinion polls, but his problem is that he will lose to any candidate in the second round of the presidential elections. Therefore, a task for the people I have mentioned is to be second in the first round of the elections. It is difficult but feasible.

“The current leaders can ward off this situation, I mean Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, but they need to come to agreement. Today Ukraine has a strong leader, Tymoshenko, who has a weak party (BYuT). If there be no Tymoshenko tomorrow, her party will simply vanish into thin air. Yanukovych has a different problem: the Party of Regions can exist without him. So, these two asymmetric forces should unite, and that is why the talks about the coalition between the BYuT and the Party of Regions are always in the air. If they fail to strike a deal, I think they will have big problems, especially given the worsening of the economic crisis.

“For example, I don’t understand how Tymoshenko is going to retain her popularity in the country that continues to be under the tough pressure of the crisis. She thinks that it is enough to pay wages and pensions in order to keep her high political standing. But on the other hand, her great problems with access to mass media are the reason why she is holding on to her seat, I mean she is surrounded by unfriendly channels. As the prime minister, she can keep her vantage ground more easily, while she would not have the same opportunities if she remained in the opposition.”

According to your American sources, what policy line is the Obama administration going to pursue regarding Ukraine, taking into account the future presidential elections in our country?

“I won’t exaggerate, as many people do, the attention Ukraine enjoyed from the George W. Bush administration. At that time the US was planning to accept Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and this desire was especially strengthened after the Orange revolution in Ukraine and the Rose revolution in Georgia. Today the situation has changed: the US pays less attention to the countries of the post-Soviet space. To tell the truth, giving the MAP to Ukraine is not even on the agenda. The US pays less attention not only to Ukraine and Georgia, but also to Russia, which greatly irritates the Kremlin, because the Russian leadership are used to commanding attention as the second superpower in the world and thought that this would last forever.

“Ukrainian politicians have a wrong perception of Washington’s role; they try to measure it with their own yardstick. One should not place emphasis on the amount of the attention paid, but on its quality. Of course, long-term interest of the US is clear: it wants Ukraine to eventually integrate into the Western community. However, I am not sure that this refers to the NATO structures, because this is the subject of a large debate in Washington. There is an opinion that one should stop viewing NATO from the geographical standpoint and that it should be considered as a union of democratic states independent of their location. If NATO is waging war in Afghanistan, how on earth can be called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Politicians who favor invite Australia, Japan and other democratic states to NATO have now assumed very influential offices in the Obama Administration.

“I want to draw your attention to the way Ukraine’s political elite is viewed in Washington. There were many illusions after the Orange revolution, but they have come to nothing now. One frequently hears the following words in Washington: it is difficult to help this country, which does not want to help itself. In this sense the Ukrainian elite has caused even a certain kind of negative perception in the US. But I think joint programs will continue to expand for the Ukrainian elite to take part in the dialogue with the representatives of the American and European elites. The US understands that nothing will change if Ukraine is accepted into NATO tomorrow, because what needs to change is the quality of Ukraine’s politics and elite.”